Hayes convicted of murder — again

STOCKTON - A man who escaped the death penalty on appeal, then acted as his own attorney only to refuse to attend his own retrial, has been convicted of first-degree murder for the second time.

Jennie Rodriguez-Moore

CORRECTION: Feb. 4, 2014

Jurors in the Blufford Hayes trial were unconvinced he was guilty until they heard his testimony from 1982. In a retrial, Hayes was convicted Jan. 23 of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, special circumstances of burglary and an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon.

STOCKTON - A man who escaped the death penalty on appeal, then acted as his own attorney only to refuse to attend his own retrial, has been convicted of first-degree murder for the second time.

Blufford Hayes Jr., who appeared before jurors Thursday for the first time since jury selection, also was found guilty of first-degree robbery and the special circumstances of burglary and an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon in the 1980 slaying of Vinod "Pete" Patel, a motel manager found with his arms and legs bound with wire clothes hangers and stabbed to death inside a motel room.

Hayes, 58, nodded his head affirmatively as the verdict was read.

"I think he knew," jury forewoman Amber Fortner said in the court hallway afterward. "But I think he has some kind of motive for not being in the courtroom.

"I don't know what it is, but I think he is smart. He got the appeal after all this time."

Hayes was originally convicted in 1982 and awaited execution on California's death row. But he was granted a retrial in 2005 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds the prosecutor in the original trial made a secret deal with a jailhouse snitch in exchange for testimony against Hayes.

Then came a bizarre trial where the defendant's seat sat empty.

Fortner's hunch on Hayes' antics resonates with Deputy District Attorney Thomas Testa, who can only speculate why the self-litigating prisoner represented himself in a serious murder case, then removed himself from testimony hearings.

"I think he did it primarily for appellate purposes," Testa said. "I think he very cleverly looked ahead and just like a game of chess figured this was his best hope. Because had he participated, I think he would have been convicted. I know he would have.

"He put all his marbles in this hope that an appellate court will throw this out because of his absence and his not having an attorney."

Even though Hayes created the circumstances, Testa said, "On paper, it looks pretty bad. The judges were very careful in making sure he understood the consequences, but I worry that somewhere down the line an appellate judge will look at this and say, 'This guy was convicted when he wasn't even in the courtroom and didn't even have an attorney,' and they won't look any further."

Outside legal experts viewed Hayes' handling of new trial as leading to a certain conviction.

But to Testa, it was anything but a slam dunk for two reasons:

» "The age of the case made it very problematical. I worried jurors would have a hard time accepting the testimony of dead witnesses. And the witnesses who were here, understandably, could remember so little. We ended up reading the reports written back in 1980.

» "Then there was something more nebulous. That was the (potential) perception by the jurors that perhaps this wasn't a fair fight. I mean, if you go to a boxing match and you see a 300-pound boxer boxing a 100-pound person, you stop and say, 'I don't want to watch this, it's an unfair fight, it's disgusting, I'm walking out.' Thankfully, it did not have that influence on the jurors."

Hayes' absence played no role in the jury's conclusion, according to Fortner.

"We couldn't think of that at all," she said. "We had to just consider the evidence that was presented to us."

And for most of the trial, Fortner said, jurors were unconvinced Hayes was the perpetrator - until they heard a reading of the defendant's testimony from 1982 in which he admitted to killing Patel but claimed it was in self-defense.

Visiting Judge Edward Lacy, who presided over the trial, made sure to bring Hayes into court a few times each day, outside the presence of jurors, to offer him the opportunity to participate. Hayes declined every time.

Lacy also had an audio feed of the hearings set up in the holding area where Hayes waited out the trial.

The jury deliberated for two hours on Wednesday and a half-hour Thursday before rendering a unanimous verdict.

The District Attorney's Office took the death penalty off the table for Hayes. This time, he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Hayes is scheduled to be sentenced March 3.

"Justice was served," Fortner said. "Whether they have a reason for an appeal or not, I think this time, there were no mistakes. As far as we knew, he was innocent until he was proven guilty. And he was proven guilty."

Contact reporter Jennie Rodriguez-Moore at (209) 943-8564 or jrodriguez@recordnet.com. Follow her at recordnet.com/courtsblog and on Twitter @TheRecordCourts.